Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard/Archive

Report date May 14 2009, 05:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Cunard/NrDg showed identical motivations and poor spirit in making accusations against me and another guy. If not the same user then they teaming up. Cunard's sustained reaction to my points of view on Delboy and NrDg articles showed unusual emotional and vindictive reaction for an objective person not related to accused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gregory_Clegg
 * Evidence submitted by DunkinDonutBoy

User 7 claims knowledge of Cunard's personal history in his comment below. Also, they both votestacked Delboy delete discussion with identical positions and Gregory Clegg sockpuppet investigations. Note user 7 recently changed identity from JCutter.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I have exactly one alternative account as permitted by policy. This is documented on my user page. --NrDg 13:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-good faith revenge claim against Cunard for his SPI request. Not supported by any evidence.  7   talk   05:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Further, code E below is invalid as Cunard has never been banned or sanctioned.    7   talk   05:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, Mr #7 Neither have I been banned or sanctioned, yet I have a code E. And I wouldn't call his accusation of me 'in good faith'. Maybe you his sockpuppet too?--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have missed the point. Gregory Clegg is a confirmed sockpuppeteer and has been blocked, and Cunard has listed you as a potential new sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg to circumvent community sanctions.  Neither of the people you have listed for SPI here have been sanctioned so code E below is invalid.  Please try to avoid commenting on your case inside this investigation.     7   talk   06:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * His creation of my case is evidence man.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is completely ridiculous, and furthermore it violates WP:CIVIL as a "ill-considered accusation of impropriety". SpitfireTally-ho! 07:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(←)Agreed. Uncivil, disruptive request by a blocked suspected sock puppet. No evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry by any of the accused parties, only the accusing party.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a waste of everyone's time. An article was in AfD, Cunard rightfully noted that there is good evidence to support that DunkinDonutBoy MAY be a sockpuppet.  After that note was made, DunkinDonutBoy preceded to take the argument to Cunard's talk page.  After I commented at the AfD, DDB also took the discussion to my talk page.  He may have done this with every person who commented.  This is purely a vindictive move by DDB and deserves some sort of reprimand.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested by DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Could you please provide more evidence via diffs to support your claim? Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  14:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * . Disruptive report by a blocked sock puppet. -- Kanonkas : Talk  09:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)